Stories

Newspapers ask Congress for new protections from Google, Facebook

Rebecca Zisser/Axios

The News Media Alliance (NMA), a newspaper trade group that represents over 2,000 newspapers in the U.S., is asking Congress for an antitrust safe harbor against Google and Facebook. David Chavern, the CEO and President of the Alliance, tells Axios:

QuoteUltimately, we need a better deal from a distorted system.

At issue: The group — with support from members like The New York Times, Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal — argues that existing media competition laws prevent news organizations from working together to negotiate better deals with major internet platforms, unintentionally enabling Google and Facebook to continue to control the digital advertising ecosystem and information economy.

Why it matters: With the support of every major print publication, this is the first big step media industry leaders are taking to rally government action against the Google-Facebook duopoly. In Europe, the duopoly's dominance has been fiercely challenged by antitrust regulators, but in the U.S. regulators have largely ignored the issue, allowing Google and Facebook to grow to a point where they control over 60% of the U.S. digital ad market and over 50% of the global digital ad market. Meanwhile, media companies' ad revenues continue to decline.

The strategy: Chavern has written an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal outlining his position, but says NMA is not calling out any specific lawmakers or committees at this time. "We are just starting to work the Hill," NMA Chairman Michael J. Klingensmith, publisher and CEO of the Minneapolis Star Tribune Media, tells Axios. Klingensmith adds that there's an attachment to local news organizations that lawmakers will want to see sustained, which is an encouraging sign.

By the numbers: There's unquestionable evidence that the duopoly's dominance has created a media economy that is unsustainable for news publishers.

60% of total U.S. digital ad revenue will go to Google and Facebook this year, per eMarketer estimates — roughly $73 billion.

Nearly 80% of all digital search ad revenue in the U.S. will go to Google this year and nearly 40% of all digital display ad revenue in the U.S. will go to Facebook, per eMarketer.

83% of every new digital ad dollar will go to the duopoly this year, according to calculations from Digital Content Next, the premium publishers association.

By comparison, the print industry brings in roughly $18 billion in advertising revenue (both print and digital), nearly a third of what it was just 10 years ago, according to Pew. That's roughly the same as all of Facebook's U.S. digital ad revenue and less than half of Google's.

The impact on news: The group also argues that the Facebook and Google's dominance has created an unhealthy media economy and news environment, where the duopoly benefits from investments made by news companies, and consumers are less likely to connect with news brands. To combat this, they're looking for Google and Facebook to make four key changes:

Increase advertising revenue sharing: Facebook has made revenue sharing updates to Instant Articles and video over the past few months, but the industry argues it's not enough. "It's a promise that hasn't materialized," Klingensmith says.

Create more support for news subscription models: This includes a way to drive subscriptions through Facebook and amend Google's first-click policy that allows access to content past paywalls. There are rumors that Facebook is adding a publisher subscription feature for mobile.

Improve data sharing: Give newspaper publishers more data about their own readers on both platforms. "When our content is being read on Facebook, that audience is invisible to us," Klingensmith says.

Develop better brand support: They argue that brand is at the core of the news business and Google and Facebook have come between consumers and the brand. A new Pew/Knight Foundation study conducted earlier this year found that 10% of respondents exposed to news articles on Facebook thought the news source was Facebook.

Campbell Brown, Head of News Partnerships at Facebook tells Axios: "We're committed to helping quality journalism thrive on Facebook. We're making progress through our work with news publishers and have more work to do."A spokesperson from Google says: "We want to help news publishers succeed as they transition to digital. In recent years we've built numerous specialized products and technologies, developed specifically to help distribute, fund, and support newspapers. This is a priority and we remain deeply committed to helping publishers with both their challenges, and their opportunities."

Self-driving lab head urges freeze after "nightmare" fatality

Uber self-driving car in Pittsburgh. Photo: Jeff Swensen / Getty

Carmakers and technology companies should freeze their race to field autonomous vehicles because "clearly the technology is not where it needs to be," said Raj Rajkumar, head of Carnegie Mellon University's leading self-driving laboratory.

What he said: Speaking a few hours after a self-driven vehicle ran over and killed a pedestrian in Arizona, Rajkumar said, "This isn't like a bug with your phone. People can get killed. Companies need to take a deep breath. The technology is not there yet. We need to keep people in the loop."

Why it matters: Virtually every major car company on theplanet, in addition to numerous startups and tech companies, are doing live testing of self-driving vehicles — and pushing policy officials to allow them to do so.

But Rajkumar said that ordinary people in addition to automakers and tech companies have developed far too much trust in self-driving technology simply because the cars have driven hundreds of thousands of miles with only one fatality before this — a Tesla driver who slammed into the side of a truck last year.

Quote "This is the nightmare all of us working in this domain always worried about."

Here's where the big redistricting court fights stand

Demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court last October during a hearing on a Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case. Photo: Olivier Douliery / Getty Images

Redistricting battles in key states are playing out in the U.S. Supreme Court and various federal courts that involve partisan and racial gerrymandering, stemming from voting maps drawn after the 2010 census.

Why it matters: Both Democrats and Republicans have legally designed maps to gain electoral advantages and capture majorities. But these cases could alter how lines are redrawn, and implement a concrete legal standard to determine when redistricting is infected with political bias and discriminate against voters of color.

As the 2020 census count looms —which lawmakers use to draw proportional electoral district lines every ten years — these cases could affect the next round of redistricting and upend the control of Congress and state legislatures over the next decade.

Wisconsin

The latest: The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case this spring.

The backdrop: Wisconsin Republicans appealed a lower-court ruling that struck down the legislative map drawn in 2011 citing that it was unconstitutional because it's heavily skewed in their favor. The court later ordered the state to draw a new map by Nov. 2017, a request the U.S. Supreme Court blocked when it agreed to hear the case last year.

Why it matters: If the justices uphold a lower court ruling challenging the State Assembly Districts, this would be the first time the Supreme Court strikes down a voting map on the grounds of partisan gerrymandering.

Maryland

The backdrop: The case centers on the 6th congressional district, which was redrawn in 2011 to include parts of the heavily Democratic Montgomery County. ​While Republican voters argue that the Democratic-controlled legislature is unfairly drawn, three judges ruled against the plaintiffs' request to discontinue the use of the current map ahead of the 2018 midterm election.

Why it matters: ​This is the only redistricting legal battle filed against Democrats. Republicans there said the current map has diluted their votes and cost an incumbent his seat.​

Texas

The backdrop: Two congressional and eight state legislative districts were ruled unconstitutional racial gerrymanders after a court said they violated the Voting Rights Act because lawmakers intentionally designed them to dilute the political power of minority voters who favor Democrats. Last year, the Supreme Court blocked a redrawing order for new maps ahead of this year's midterm as they consider an appeal from the state.

Why it matters: This is a short-term victory for Republicans who appealed a lower court ruling that ordered them to draw new maps to remedy the alleged infractions ahead of this year's midterm election.

The backdrop: The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Republican's request last month to block the ordering of a new map, after state‘s high court gave lawmakers and Gov. Tom Wolf (D) more than three weeks to agree on one, which they failed to do.In the meantime, Republicans have been considering impeaching the Supreme Court justices who struck down the gerrymandered map. Republicans had filed another challenge urging U.S. Supreme Court to halt the map. That decision is still pending.

Why it matters: Early analysis of the new congressional map said elections will be more competitive and it would likely put several Republican-held seats in play for Democrats. Democrats who are hoping to defeat Republican incumbents in this year’s midterm elections and take control of the House.

North Carolina

The latest: The U.S. Supreme Court last month issued a temporary hold on ordering the state legislature to redraw its excessively partisan congressional map.

Why it matters: This is a short-term victory for Republicans who hold 10 of the 13 U.S. House seats there. The high court did not say when the case would be resolved, but constitutional law expert and University of Richmond law professor, Carl Tobias, told Axios that the ruling issued in the Wisconsin case could be use to determine the North Carolina challenge after an appealed is filed.

Virginia

The latest: The Virginia Supreme Court is reviewing a racially-charged case regarding the 2011 redrawing of the states' House of Delegates district lines.

Why it matters: The case centers on concerns that the map, drawn by Virginia's Republican-led legislature, had deliberately packed black voters together to limit their influence so surrounding districts could be more winnable for GOP lawmakers.

Michigan

The latest: ​A federal court will hear oral arguments on March 20 that seek to toss out the current legislative and congressional maps crafted by state Republicans.

The backdrop: Filed last December, the challenge came days after a Michigan citizen-led group submitted more than 425,000 signatures for a 2018 redistricting ballot reform initiative that would change how electoral districts are drawn. The petition signatures are under review.

Why it matters: ​The suit wants new electoral lines if the legislature does not pass a constitutional redistricting plan that would mandate an independent commission to draw a new map.